Replies Received
|
Replies to your reviews or comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
76
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from Xororos:
(asmith12's Reply)
>Well, I understand your point, but on the other hand I see LOTS of MUCH MORE
>deceptive practices (like PRE-CHECKED "trials" with outrageous renewal rates when
>subscribing)
Well, you've got me there! Any site that includes pre-checked trials is not cool. Again, I think we've had very different experiences. Until M&B, I had never joined a site with a pre-checked trial or anything like it. I'm aware that stuff like that is out there, but I've never joined a site like that.
Maybe it was a combination of the pre-checked trial they tried to get me to accept, or the really patronizing email from the support staff that treated me like I was an idiot who never joined an adult site before, or the trial that was so severely limited that it was almost useless - whatever the reason, I got a very negative impression of M&B and I can't recommend it to anyone.
Sites like that make me really appreciate the ones who do it well in a straightforward and direct manner.
|
06-02-09 12:41pm
|
Reply
77
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Xororos:
(asmith12's Reply)
Yeah, we're officially arguing semantics :)
>> wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
>Come on, $2 or so they're getting is not really a financial gain (they're paying almost all >of it or even more for the transaction itself).
The financial gain isn't from the $3.95 trial, but from the full subscription that kicks in after 24 hours. It's merely a ploy to hook you. It's a classic bait and switch, which results in them being *that* much more likely to get you to sign on for the full subscription.
Moreover, it's a matter of principal. There is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be up-front about the whole thing. If I knew I was getting a limited trial, I probably would have tried it anyway. It just annoys me, you know?
I understand that you're playing devil's advocate in regards to what a "trial" is. Perhaps the word "trial" outside of the adult industry has a different meaning, but what does that matter? We're not outside of the adult industry. The bottom line for me is, I've done a lot of trials and the ones that are limited tell me so, so I expect that. You can say it's redundant, but we clearly have different expectations for trials. I consider a trial to be limited to length of subscription only.
I don't think we're going to come to an agreement, but it's a fun conversation, especially since the subject is porn :-)
|
06-02-09 12:01am
|
Reply
78
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#34
from GCode:
(asmith12's Reply)
Well I was using that site and the others as an example of some of the better looking and more professionally looking videos I've seen on a site in my recent stays. However, I think that the demo might have been the wrong choice for which video to promote for their site. Besides, the whole preview page for that site is actually horrendous. However, I did not join this site on a whim and it was several other of the more upstanding PU'ers that guided me towards this site and they were the ones who told me about how well these videos were produced. Plus, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree about the site and it's videos, they blew me away after watching more than 75% of the content on a large screen LCD TV when I compare to the other sites that used 640 X 480 or 720 X 480 in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 kbps which I thought was the debate to begin with. It was just one site as an example, I'm not saying they have the best videos I've ever seen, it was just a site I remembered off hand and had access to recently using a higher format than what was discussed and had way better looking videos than the majority of the sites I've been to that used lower resolutions and bitrates.
As for the argument of comparing any site's video quality when talking about 'HD' to a blu-ray, I find that a bit overwhelming to even think that these can be compared. A standard blu-ray disc is 25 GB's and a movie is 1 hour and 30 mins to 2 hours long. Let's say there are 30 mins of special features. A site's videos range from 15 to 30 mins. So, lets say an average blu-ray is 1 hour and 45 mins with 30 mins of special features. This uses up a standard blu ray at 25 GB and if you average in a site's average scene which is 20 mins, that's about 8.75 scenes for one blu-ray. However, that means that each scene would roughly be at 2.7 to 3.0 GB's if it was in true blu ray quality. Therefore, these scenes from sites are obviously not that high and therefore could never be the same quality or even in the same class as a true blu ray scene because a 20 min scene at the usual 1280 X 720 format is only 300-800 MB. Yes, a standard blu ray is at 1920 X 1080 and if these videos used that res, they would probably jump up in size but no where near 2.7 to 3.0 GB's. So, what I'm trying to say, is that at the encoding that most sites do at 1280 X 720 and 4002 kbps with the quality I've seen, they are extremely nice and the comparison to blu ray just seems outrageous.
Maybe I'm just crazy and my standards are a bit lower or something, I just think that at that format (1280 X 720, 4002 kbps) and with certain sites, they are remarkable for the size I'm downloading at.
Hope this all makes sense and I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, hope we can talk about some other things soon!
|
06-01-09 11:58am
|
Reply
79
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Xororos:
(asmith12's Reply)
asmith12:
Thanks for the comment. I think Fraud is warranted when you make every effort to discover the nature of what you're about to purchase and you find that you've purchased something else entirely. The vast majority of trial subscriptions I've purchased have all been full trials.
I'm thinking of rookiebabe, daisybeach, nakedhappygirls, perfect10, changeroomhunters, alyssadoll, rayspade, justnude, and countless others.
It doesn't really matter what you're buying, the company has a duty to tell you what to expect. In my book, when you go above and beyond a standard level of buying research (e.g. reading the fine print), and you STILL are given no indication, that matches the definition of fraud in my dictionary: wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
We're probably just arguing semantics and, like you, I'm okay if a site has a limited trial, but they usually tell you up front that it's limited. M&B did not.
|
06-01-09 09:49am
|
Reply
80
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#32
from GCode:
(asmith12's Reply)
I have almost every video from InFocusGirls and I watch them on a 42 inch LCD TV. I can account for them being just as good or even better than the hundreds of DVD's I've rented. That's strange that you find the lighting for that site to be bad because I've found the locations to be extremely well lit and the outside scenes are always on a sunny day. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say these videos are some of the most professional scenes I've seen on a site so far. In these videos, I've even seen the little light blonde hairs that women can get which I've only seen in well lit areas and real life. While I'll agree the earlier videos are not as good but I'd say less than 1/4 are from the site's beginning and used those formats. While this is my opinion, I don't know what else to say besides the fact that if you found videos better than this, I'd like to know which sites so I can check them out.
|
05-31-09 12:44pm
|
Reply
81
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#29
from GCode:
(asmith12's Reply)
Yep, I am a current/previous member at shemale.asia, infocus girls, only cuties, ladyboy player, long mint, areeyas world, only tgirls, shemale club, and I can name abut 5-6 more of my favorites that use that format and they are the best I've ever seen. So yes, I have seen plenty that use that and are crystal clear.
|
05-30-09 09:46am
|
Reply
82
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Jay G:
(asmith12's Reply)
It's not the blindness, but the hair on your palms that gets annoying.
|
05-30-09 04:59am
|
Reply
83
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#23
from turboshaft:
(asmith12's Reply)
I understand 4000 px is huge today...but in the future it could simply be standard, even if the displays really don't get any bigger. I am talking more from a collector's point of view, so I want my smut to age like a fine wine, except you get to drink it over and over again for as long as you have it!
As I said in my original reply, I remember a time when 800 x 600 was big, screen-filling beauty, but now it simply is not. I still have the majority of my '90s photos, they just have not withstood the test of time in terms of size as much as I would like them have to.
I sometimes get greedy about photo and monitor sizes -- especially when someone uses the term beast to describe either one -- so I can't wait for the day that a standard display will practically support 4000 px photos, I just may have to put some of my oldest photos out to pasture.
|
05-29-09 02:25pm
|
Reply
84
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#22
from GCode:
(asmith12's Reply)
You could be right but I have recently joined about 5-6 sites whose videos were at 640 or 720 and at ~1000 kbps. What can I say for these videos? They were unbearable to watch and borderline disgusting that I even paid my hard earned money to look at. Honestly, the best endcoding I've seen on sites is at 1280 res and 4002 kbps. These are all crystal clear, not extremely huge, and I feel like I'm getting what I paid for. I have come across some sites that encode at about what you said and been average, but to be honest, they are far in between most sites. So, I'm not saying your wrong or that videos at that rate can't be good, but for some of the prices I spend for sites and it being mid 2009, these videos are absolutely horrid for the most part on a lot of sites still.
|
05-29-09 12:36pm
|
Reply
85
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#21
from Wittyguy:
(asmith12's Reply)
I agree that 4000 pixel images are a bit over the top today but generally the stuff we collect we intend to keep for a long time so you have to look beyond today. It's already possible to hook up monitor feeds to tvs and as technology moves along our tv will also become a major feed for porn. Who the heck would want a 900x600 image on a 48" HD tv screen? So, while huge pics maybe overboard today, you may thank yourself for having big ass pics (or movies) in the future.
|
05-29-09 11:59am
|
Reply
86
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
from PinkPanther:
It seems like this site is aiming to overtake VideoBox - that kind of competition is a great thing for porn fans. I'm still on a one-month join of this site and keep comparing the updates to this site as compared to the updates at VideoBox. This site wins the Update Challenge for my tastes every single day. They're making a run in quantity of DVD's too - they just announced that from May 25-May 29, they'll be uploading 6 DVD's a day.
They need to fine-tune the quality of the vids, in my opinion. They need to add some kind of voting or comment area. VideoBox will still have their clip feature - and I'm not recommending that this site copy-cat VideoBox to that extent, but they probably ought to think about what fun proprietary feature they could develop to take them out of the real of just another DVD site - or they could just concentrate on having the very best DVD's available and leave the other stuff alone.
They're doing a lot right.
|
05-23-09 10:13am
|
Reply
87
|
Fully Clothed Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
from Cybertoad:
Very nice review , liked the detailed review well done.
|
05-22-09 10:34am
|
Reply
88
|
Party Hardcore
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
from mbaya:
Excellent review of a site I would consider. Congratulations on reaching 100 points.
|
05-21-09 07:58pm
|
Reply
89
|
Fully Clothed Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
from monty2222:
Good review, makes me wanna give it a try when I get through my current lesbian phase. Funny how it has been categorized as a 'bizarre fetish' by TBP/PU, sex with clothes on doesn't strike me as that outlandish. :-)
|
05-21-09 12:24pm
|
Reply
90
|
Fully Clothed Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
from Wittyguy:
Hey man, thanks for the update here. I definitely liked the site but haven't been back in years. Maybe I'll get back there later this year. Thanks for the technical specs too (sorry if I was giving you a hard time in the forum about that stuff).
|
05-21-09 12:22pm
|
Reply
91
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from jd1961:
(asmith12's Reply)
When the so-called "gonzo" genre began, there was a lot of creative stuff going on really. But now it's more liekly to be a schmoe with a camera copping a cheap feel off the hired actress.
|
05-20-09 11:48pm
|
Reply
92
|
Party Hardcore
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
from Wittyguy:
Congrats on hitting the 100 point mark with this review.
|
05-20-09 01:40pm
|
Reply
93
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
from jd1961:
I blame the the male performers mostly for the sad state of American porn, although I guess it could be said the director is responsible. If you look closely, these guys ruin nearly every single scene. Not enough sense to even keep their hands out of the camera lens.
Also, American porn has become quite grim. Like the 1990's, the women are largely unnatractive, and fake body parts have unfortunately made a comeback.
All these American porn producers ought to study Japanese porn, but I doubt they really care about the product they put out.
|
05-20-09 01:00am
|
Reply
94
|
Ultimate Surrender
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
from Jay G:
I enjoyed Ultimate Surrendor because of the unscripted nature. If you've watched a lot of porn, a little unpredictability is a good thing. Fights were too long for my short attention span, but some parts of the fights and the "sex" scenes were really smokin' hot.
|
04-20-09 10:56am
|
Reply
95
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#21
from badandy400:
(asmith12's Reply)
I would like to hear it so go ahead and enlighten us. I have noticed this same thing and never put much thought to it. So please give us your thoughts and knowledge.
|
04-17-09 11:44pm
|
Reply
96
|
Ultimate Surrender
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from mbaya:
(asmith12's Reply)
It has been a very long time since I was a member. With your comments and how the preview looks, I may sign up. What quality are the videos?
|
04-10-09 07:15am
|
Reply
97
|
Digamour
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Khan:
(asmith12's Reply)
That's something we take care of from our end. Often, we'll pull the remarks by that users but in cases where it'll disrupt a thread, we'll generally leave them but add a note like the above.
|
04-03-09 04:54am
|
Reply
98
|
Digamour
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Khan:
(asmith12's Reply)
note that we show that user muglore shares a computer with the registered webmaster for this site.
|
03-12-09 03:33pm
|
Reply
99
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#20
from hondaman:
(asmith12's Reply)
Yeah that is your op but simply because I am new to this site doesnt me I dont have good analytical skills and by trade I am a homicide cop been doing that specific feild since 2005 been a cop by trade since I was 19 years old when I joined the Air Force and been a civilian cop since I got out so I have 9 years in a job that requires attention to detail and honesty to the law to the utmost and one that requires 0 mistakes in filing your work one error or case of dishonesty on my behalf and a gulity person can walk free.
|
11-15-08 03:58pm
|
Reply
100
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#18
from hondaman:
(asmith12's Reply)
So why do you target me for my score when there a few people below me that have given a pretty high score then? Why do question my thoughts but you dont question theirs?
|
11-15-08 02:05pm
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
